I need some advice concerning my Canon 50mm 1.2 lens. I purchased this lens over a year ago but I have never been very excited about the images that are made with it. A lot of people consider it as the ultimate lens, I do like the focal length but when I shoot with a 135mm 2.0 the images are crisp and sharp. I do not seem to be able to obtain this crisp and sharp look and feel with the 50mm 1.2. I wonder if I have a bad lens or maybe it is not as sharp as I want it to be (which I doubt).

I have finally taken the time to make several shots to compare. And out of these series, only the f2.8 with -20 micro adjustment is sharp. I consider image 10, f2.0 with -20 micro adjustment acceptable. But none of the f1.2 shots are sharp.
I have already sent my lens back to Canon for calibration and they said it is within range. Not sure what they mean within range.

Maybe the more experienced photographers can tell me if this is "within range".

All images are taken with an 1dx on tripod and cropped without further editing

I don't own the lens but have always wanted to
I don't know how sharp it can be at f/1.2 but those shots don't look too good to me, I assume there is no filter on the lens?
Sharpness is there at f/2 in the -10 range to me and at f/2.8 at -15 as I see it.......

Other owners will likely be more helpful.
Would focusing screen in camera play into the shots at f/1.2?
Karl

Are they 100% crops? Maybe it's not one of shooting test charts with but my real world experience with the lens is that it's great. I couldn't actually tell you if what you've got is normal, I don't tend to shoot test charts like that but personally I don't see an issue with it. I also own the 135L and it is undoubtedly sharper wide open but stop the 50L down to f2 and they're much closer.

Rather than absolute sharpness I've always considered focus accuracy to be far more important

When I look at the test shots one by one, they actually look OK. But when you flip through them, going back and forth. The difference is huge. Download number 5, 10 and 15 to your computer. Flip through them.
But if this is normal I will have to look at other solutions. Because for me it is not good enough.

Switch into live view mode and get some shots to isolate that variable. That uses CDAF and should be much better. Or punch in and manually focus.

My 50/1.2 is fine and plenty sharp in the center, even wide open.

Yes, sorry. I actually do not know if it is the lens or the camera. I just have a feeling that my images are not as sharp as they should be. Micro adjusting did help quite a bit. The difference is clear on f2 and f2.8. But micro adjust did not help at all for f1.2 All 5 images are a bit blurry even in de center.

Remoras - to isolate the camera or lens, first of all stop worrying about the (less accurate but faster) PDAF of focusing via the viewfinder. Go into live view mode and either zoom in and manually focus OR just use the (slower/more accurate) CDAF of the live view AF.

Microadjusting the PDAF should be done later on. You need to figure out if you have a bad lens or not first.

Shield wrote:
Remoras - to isolate the camera or lens, first of all stop worrying about the (less accurate but faster) PDAF of focusing via the viewfinder. Go into live view mode and either zoom in and manually focus OR just use the (slower/more accurate) CDAF of the live view AF.

Microadjusting the PDAF should be done later on. You need to figure out if you have a bad lens or not first.

thanks. I will do this again tomorrow.
Now that you mention it. I did manual focus and I do remember it being much sharper.

It is getting too dark now. I will give it a try tomorrow.
I assumed it was the lens because my other lenses are all sharp(er).

Have you shown your test shots to Canon? Did you confirm that you are using a filter or no filter? If you are using a filter with the 50L, I would take the filter off.

I own this lens and while this lens is not the 24-70 II as far as sharpness is concerned, it does produce some rather sharp images even wide open which I have done many times.

I suggest that you return the lens to Canon and include your test shots. What "within range" means is that Canon won't recalibrate the lens if it is within a particular tolerence specific to the lens. Mine back focused slightly and I did have Canon re-calibrate the lens and they did confirm it was back-focusing. Once re-calibrated, it needs no AFMA.

Hope you can get things resolved as my 50L is one of my most used lenses.

mogud wrote:
Have you shown your test shots to Canon? Did you confirm that you are using a filter or no filter? If you are using a filter with the 50L, I would take the filter off.

I own this lens and while this lens is not the 24-70 II as far as sharpness is concerned, it does produce some rather sharp images even wide open which I have done many times.

I suggest that you return the lens to Canon and include your test shots. What "within range" means is that Canon won't recalibrate the lens if it is within a particular tolerence specific to the lens. Mine back focused slightly and I did have Canon re-calibrate the lens and they did confirm it was back-focusing. Once re-calibrated, it needs no AFMA.

Hope you can get things resolved as my 50L is one of my most used lenses....Show more →

Hey mogud,
I also love 50mm. But I am not in love with my 50mm 1.2 which is unfortunate. I have always been a big fan of 50mm.
I do not use filters on any of my lenses. A few years ago I did buy UV filters for all my lenses and now they have been laying around. I should sell the filters because I do not use them anymore.

I also have the 24-70 II and I have to agree that it is very very sharp. I own a lot of the Canon primes and I am happy with all of them except with the 50mm.

Tomorrow I will redo the test manually focusing.

I have never been a fan of 3rd party lenses. But the new sigma looks promising. It is very possible that I will swap.

I have owned this lens twice; and it will never win awards for sharpness. It renders beautifully but I would not use it for landscapes. It's a people documentary lens. The AF mechanism is also not always reliable. The Sigma 50 1.4 is much more clinically sharp with noticeable increase in resolution but it does not render as artistically as the 50L

arize84 wrote:
I have owned this lens twice; and it will never win awards for sharpness. It renders beautifully but I would not use it for landscapes. It's a people documentary lens. The AF mechanism is also not always reliable. The Sigma 50 1.4 is much more clinically sharp with noticeable increase in resolution but it does not render as artistically as the 50L

The AF on the 50L has to be far more consistent than the Sigma 50. I owned the latter in a different mount and it was all over the place AF-wise...

panicatnabisco wrote:
I was going to post a long write up about the 50L but I realized just saying "Its a 50L, its just how it is" just sums it up. Expecting it to behave like a normal lens is where the problem starts

So many people shoot other things than test charts

I sense that you feel that you are being targeted
I am glad that you are happy with the lens but the subject should not matter. I want to test if the lens is sharp, I could have used a person or any other object to do the testing.